Not finding any, Gore airbrushes in hurricanes for his new book
Leon
"Mr. Gore, you are a charlatan."
Joe Cool
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/not-finding-any-gore-airbrushes...
>
> "Mr. Gore, you are a charlatan."
So does the book claim that the photo is happening now, definitely
will happen or could happen?
I suspect the latter.
Catoni
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/not-finding-any-gore-airbrushes...
>
Al Gore the Fraud.
With hurricanes and world cyclone and tropical storm energy at a
thirty year low, Gore had to turn to Photoshop and airbrushes.
Gore wasn't happy airbrushing in just one hurricane... he had to
add three, plus he stupidly added in a southern tropical cyclone...
in the northern hemisphere near Florida. He obviously doesn't know
the difference.
The ocean has broken through in Greenland, creating a sea in the
interior of Greenland. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha
Al Gore is such an idiot....
Did you also notice that Gore has the Caribbean islands vanished
beneath the rising sea, Newfoundland off the east coast of Canada has
disappeared under the rising seas, looks like much of Nova Scotia is
gone, most of Florida is under water, the sea has moved inland along
the southern States, Baja California has been swallowed by the sea,
much of Central America is under water. (No need to use the Panama
Canal... just sail through. LOL )
You might notice more changes Gore made with his airbrush
technique.
What a hoaxer... Liar.... LOL and people are dumb enough to lap
it up....
I bet Ouroboros Rex and enigma rush right out to buy it.
Catoni
I love the words that the Alarmists use so much. Words like "might",
"maybe", "Possibly", "could", "if"....
You "could" step outside tomorrow and "maybe" get hit in the head
and killed by a five ounce meteorite.
It is "possible". It "might" happen "if" all the factors involved
in that happening line up just right.
But what are the odds of it happening? ? ? ?
richp
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/not-finding-any-gore-airbrushes...
>
Then so is Steven Hawkings Leon you piece of dog shit
richp
Probably 95%
*us*
>...Al Gore is ...
He's irrelevant, if you're honest.
Climate denialism isn't honest, though.
It's not based on any actual evidence.
Monkey Clumps
The burden of providing evidence falls on the AGW Kool-Aid drinkers
not the skeptics
*us*
>The burden of providing evidence falls on
You.
You have no data.
Others do have data that you can't dispute,
because you have no data.
You want to perpetrate waste and pollution
and harm to life, so corporatists can profit.
You do that without any valid basis.
>... Kool-Aid drinkers
Exxon is pissing down your throat, moron.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
Catoni
Reply:
Who's denying climate? Can you name one person who denies climate ?
Even one ?
Of course there is climate. Always has been.
There's always been climate change too.
It's so-called Anthropogenic Climate change we have a problem
believing.
As far as evidence for natural climate change... have you ever
checked into Paleoclimatology ? ? ?
pyotr filipivich
<spaceb...@yahoo.com> reported Elvis on Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:23:47
-0800 (PST) in misc.survivalism:
The AGW Kool-AID Drinkers were the ones making up the data in the
first place.
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
*us*
>... making up the data ...
Really?
*us*
> There's always been climate change too.
So what?
>... we have a problem
You have no data.
You have only lies.
You do, indeed, have a problem.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:23:47 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps <spaceb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The burden of providing evidence falls on
You.
*us*
noise, impatiently:
>...so juvenile and rudementary that it's pathetic
>...amatuer [sic] wannabe scientists like ...
You like making a fool of yourself in public, don't you.
You still have no data.
Stan de SD
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:23:47 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >The burden of providing evidence falls on
>
> You.
>
> You have no data.
>
> Others do have data that you can't dispute,
> because you have no data.
>
> You want to perpetrate waste and pollution
> and harm to life, so corporatists can profit.
> You do that without any valid basis.
If you believe that CO2 is indeed the culprit to warming temperatures,
can you actually explain the mechanism that causes this to happen? It
would be interesting to see if you understand yourself. I doubt you
can, because if you had any type of scientific background, you would
know that the main "greenhouse gas" on Earth is H2O, not CO2...
US_Army_Nutcase
Sounds like someone got a book on Water Vapor for Christmas!
Now here you go, illiterate dipshit, read and educate yourself until
your dimwitted heart is content. Or continue to stick your flat-
earther, dumbfuck head in the sand while us here in the reality-based
community continue to laugh at you. Your choice.
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/
Stan de SD
> On Dec 31, 10:18 am, Stan de SD <stand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 30, 12:55 pm, * US * wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:23:47 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >The burden of providing evidence falls on
>
> > > You.
>
> > > You have no data.
>
> > > Others do have data that you can't dispute,
> > > because you have no data.
>
> > > You want to perpetrate waste and pollution
> > > and harm to life, so corporatists can profit.
> > > You do that without any valid basis.
>
> > If you believe that CO2 is indeed the culprit to warming temperatures,
> > can you actually explain the mechanism that causes this to happen? It
> > would be interesting to see if you understand yourself. I doubt you
> > can, because if you had any type of scientific background, you would
> > know that the main "greenhouse gas" on Earth is H2O, not CO2...
>
> Sounds like someone got a book on Water Vapor for Christmas!
Sounds like you have no clue either. Once again, let's see if you
foaming and frothing eco-kooks can explain the particular mechanism,
in terms of any changes in physical or chemical state, that would make
CO2 a more significant contributor to so-called "global warming" than
water vapor, which is not only present in greater quantities, but has
a much more significant and immediate effect on surface temperatures
than CO2. Go ahead, let's see you do it...
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Dec 30, 12:55 pm, * US * wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:23:47 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >The burden of providing evidence falls on
>
> > You.
>
> > You have no data.
>
> > Others do have data that you can't dispute,
> > because you have no data.
>
> > You want to perpetrate waste and pollution
> > and harm to life, so corporatists can profit.
> > You do that without any valid basis.
>
> If you believe that CO2 is indeed the culprit to warming temperatures,
> can you actually explain the mechanism that causes this to happen?
It's in most freshman science books. CO2 absorbs IR radiation the
earth radiates and then re-emits it in all directions (preventing the
IR from escaping to space) and in doing so, warms the atmosphere.
Most middle school children know this.
>It
> would be interesting to see if you understand yourself. I doubt you
> can, because if you had any type of scientific background, you would
> know that the main "greenhouse gas" on Earth is H2O, not CO2...
And if you hadn't slept through science class, you would know H2O
isn't increasing, but CO2 is, so H2O can't be the source of the
warming (added H2O is removed as, guess what, "rain").
Climate Realist
>
> - Show quoted text -
.> It's in most freshman science books. CO2 absorbs IR radiation the
.> earth radiates and then re-emits it in all directions (preventing
the
.> IR from escaping to space) and in doing so, warms the atmosphere.
.> Most middle school children know this.
Are these the same middle school children that believe in Santa Claus,
the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy?
.> >It
.> > would be interesting to see if you understand yourself. I doubt
you
.> > can, because if you had any type of scientific background, you
would
.> > know that the main "greenhouse gas" on Earth is H2O, not CO2...
.>
.> And if you hadn't slept through science class, you would know H2O
.> isn't increasing, but CO2 is, so H2O can't be the source of the
.> warming (added H2O is removed as, guess what, "rain").
I read that the only way that the AGW computer models can generate
sizable warming, is to be programmed with the assumption that there is
a large positive feedback between CO2 and H2O (water vapour). That
does not fit in with your statement that "H2O isn't increasing". Are
you talking about liquid water or water vapour?
*us*
>Sounds like ...
Those voices in your head told you not to read the answer, didn't they.
They're lying to you.
Meanwhile, the answer is still right in front of you:
>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:35:40 -0800 (PST), US_Army_Nutcase <bella...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 31, 10:18�am, Stan de SD <stand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 30, 12:55�pm, * US * wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:23:47 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > >The burden of providing evidence falls on
>>>
>>> > You.
>>>
>>> > You have no data.
>>>
>>> > Others do have data that you can't dispute,
>>> > because you have no data.
>>>
>>> > You want to perpetrate waste and pollution
>>> > and harm to life, so corporatists can profit.
>>> > You do that without any valid basis.
>>>
>>> If you believe that CO2 is indeed the culprit to warming temperatures,
>>> can you actually explain the mechanism that causes this to happen? It
>>> would be interesting to see if you understand yourself. I doubt you
>>> can, because if you had any type of scientific background, you would
>>> know that the main "greenhouse gas" on Earth is H2O, not CO2...
>>
>>Sounds like someone got a book on Water Vapor for Christmas!
>>
>>Now here you go, illiterate dipshit, read and educate yourself until
>>your dimwitted heart is content. Or continue to stick your flat-
>>earther, dumbfuck head in the sand while us here in the reality-based
>>community continue to laugh at you. Your choice.
>>
>>http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp
>>
>>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/
Good links.
*us*
>If you believe ...
I don't need beliefs. I look at data.
Why don't you have any data?
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:23:47 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps <spaceb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The burden of providing evidence falls on
You.
You have no data.
Others do have data that you can't dispute,
because you have no data.
You want to perpetrate waste and pollution
and harm to life, so corporatists can profit.
You do that without any valid basis.
>... Kool-Aid drinkers
Curly Surmudgeon
<last...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid> wrote:
> God links if you're into unsubstantiated bullshit.
Truer words have never been spoken.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible: Slavery good, gays bad, snakes talk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I M @ good guy
<climate...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 1, 8:50 am, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
><erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>[snip] CO2 absorbs IR radiation the
>> earth radiates and then re-emits it in all directions (preventing the
>> IR from escaping to space) and in doing so, warms the atmosphere.
>> Most middle school children know this.
[snip]
>.> And if you hadn't slept through science class, you would know H2O
>.> isn't increasing, but CO2 is, so H2O can't be the source of the
>.> warming (added H2O is removed as, guess what, "rain").
>
>I read that the only way that the AGW computer models can generate
>sizable warming, is to be programmed with the assumption that there is
>a large positive feedback between CO2 and H2O (water vapour). That
>does not fit in with your statement that "H2O isn't increasing". Are
>you talking about liquid water or water vapour?
He is talking about vapor science, feedback
is a magical attribute, only known to AGW "exspurts".
None of the AGW crowd will believe that rain
absorbs CO2 and removes it from the atmosphere,
that is too complicated, only chemists know about
carbonic acid.
Its so hot I'm freezing,
and its getting hotter all the time.
Two weeks of Al Gore weather setting in,
maybe in 12 or 15 days it will get above freezing,
joking about Global Warming gloom and doom
is not funny when it is 15 or 20 degrees below
normal for a long stretch in winter.
Happy cold 2010.
Bill Ward
> In article
> <94d243a9-78c4-4ca2...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Stan de SD <stan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> CO2 a more significant contributor to so-called "global warming" than
>> water vapor, which is not only present in greater quantities, but has a
>> much more significant and immediate effect on surface temperatures than
>> CO2. Go ahead, let's see you do it...
>
> Carbon dioxide covers one side of the blackbody radiation, water vapour
> the other.
WV emits on both the high energy and low energy sides of the LWIR
spectrum, CO2 only on the low energy side.
> They independently scatter different parts of the spectrum.
Both are gases. You are misusing "scattering".
> Water vapour concentration is limited, above which it condenses and
> percipitates.
When water evaporates, it cools the surface by absorbing latent heat.
When it convects up and condenses to cloud, it releases the latent heat
as sensible heat, which efficiently radiates broadband from the cloud as
a graybody. The cloud also reflects SW, lowering surface temperatures.
Water thus acts as a regulator of surface temperatures, counteracting any
effect from CO2.
> Carbon dioxide does not condense at surface pressure and
> temperature,
And thus unlike water, cannot carry latent heat or act as a temperature
regulator. CO2 affects only radiation from high altitudes.
> it has to be removed chemically or unnatural condensation.
> Water vapour cannot accumulate and its contribution has been about the
> same; carbon dioxide has accumulated and increases it contribution.
Water evaporation increases with temperature, so the higher the surface
temperature, the more efficient the latent heat cooling effect. About
70% of the surface is water, so there's always enough.
> Because of the radiation from the earth is mostly linear and scatter is
> mostly spherical, you should expect scattering to increase as the square
> of the concentration.
The scary warming threats promoted by the AGW fraud depend on an assumed
positive feedback in climate models from water vapor. That has been
shown not to be present in the real world by satellite observation, sea
surface temperature measurements, and direct radiosonde temperature and
humidity measurements.
> Now say something smart or fuck off.
Your turn.
*us*
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:50:55 -0800 (PST), "leona...@gmail.com" <leona...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>...moron ...
That's your best excuse for your inability to
learn science.
mrbawana2u
> {who cares?]
The "Science" Mantra
By Thomas Sowell
Science is one of the great achievements of the human mind
and the biggest reason why we live not only longer but more
vigorously in our old age, in addition to all the ways in which it
provides us with things that make life easier and more enjoyable.
Like anything valuable, science has been seized upon by politicians
and ideologues,
and used to forward their own agendas. This started long ago, as far
back as the
18th century, when the Marquis de Condorcet coined the term "social
science"
to describe various theories he favored. In the 19th century, Karl
Marx and
Friedrich Engels distinguished their own brand of socialism as
"scientific socialism."
By the 20th century, all sorts of notions wrapped themselves in the
mantle of "science."
"Global warming" hysteria is only the latest in this long line of
notions,
whose main argument is that there is no argument, because it is
"science."
The recently revealed destruction of raw data at the bottom of the
global warming hysteria, as well as revelations of attempts to
prevent critics of this hysteria from being published in leading
journals,
suggests that the disinterested search for truth-- the hallmark of
real science--
has taken a back seat to a political crusade.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/22/the_science_mantra__99638.html
we need to look at the way Kyoto has turned into cash for many of the
biggest names
in the climate change world, and to do that we need to understand how
the whole
carbon trading scheme works.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-how-to-follow-the-money/?print=1
Bill Ward
> In article <Qomdnc_frKQW_aPW...@giganews.com>,
> Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:05:39 -0800, The China Blue Syndrome wrote:
>>
>> > In article
>> > <94d243a9-78c4-4ca2...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Stan de SD <stan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> CO2 a more significant contributor to so-called "global warming"
>> >> than water vapor, which is not only present in greater quantities,
>> >> but has a much more significant and immediate effect on surface
>> >> temperatures than CO2. Go ahead, let's see you do it...
>> >
>> > Carbon dioxide covers one side of the blackbody radiation, water
>> > vapour the other.
>>
>> WV emits on both the high energy and low energy sides of the LWIR
>> spectrum, CO2 only on the low energy side.
>
> Fluoresence doesn't change the absorbtion. Carbon dioxide absorbs one
> side of the blackbody radition, water vapour the other.
Fluorescence has nothing to do with it. You're wrong on both counts:
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png>
>> > They independently scatter different parts of the spectrum.
>>
>> Both are gases. You are misusing "scattering".
>
> They absorb photons and reemit in random direction. Call it what you
> want.
Absorption/emission is simply transforming photons into thermal energy
and vice versa. Scattering is changing the direction of existing photons
without absorbing them.
>> When water evaporates, it cools the surface by absorbing latent heat.
>
> A simmerring pot convects just like a boiling pot. A boiling pot
> convects more rapidly and vigourously than a simmering pot. A simmering
> pot is still cooler than a boiling pot.
And the surface is cooled by the absorbed latent heat. Your point?
>> And thus unlike water, cannot carry latent heat or act as a temperature
>> regulator. CO2 affects only radiation from high altitudes.
>
> By what property does carbon dioxide change its available energy states
> based on ambient pressure and/or temperature?
You need to explain what you mean, assuming you have any clue what you're
referring to.
>> Water evaporation increases with temperature, so the higher the surface
>> temperature, the more efficient the latent heat cooling effect. About
>> 70% of the surface is water, so there's always enough.
>
> The more water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the less radiation
> from the surface that reaches space; the atmospheric temperature rises
> until it reaches a new, higher balance of convection to radiation to
> space.
You're babbling. Can you translate that into some mechanism that makes
sense?
Better yet, just crawl back under the bridge and stop making a fool of
yourself.
Unum
Greenhouse gasses do this don't they. Existing photons are transformed
into vibrational energy and scattered into other random directions.
>>> When water evaporates, it cools the surface by absorbing latent heat.
>>
>> A simmerring pot convects just like a boiling pot. A boiling pot
>> convects more rapidly and vigourously than a simmering pot. A simmering
>> pot is still cooler than a boiling pot.
>
> And the surface is cooled by the absorbed latent heat. Your point?
I think the point is that the atmosphere as a whole is gains heat when
additional greenhouse gasses are added. Ward seems to think that water
vapor heals all wounds.
>>> And thus unlike water, cannot carry latent heat or act as a temperature
>>> regulator. CO2 affects only radiation from high altitudes.
>>
>> By what property does carbon dioxide change its available energy states
>> based on ambient pressure and/or temperature?
That wasn't the statement. He didn't say CO2 does "change its available
energy states based on ambient pressure and/or temperature". Maybe Ward
simply doesn't understand the issue. Or he won't understand it.
> You need to explain what you mean, assuming you have any clue what you're
> referring to.
I think he explained it as well as Ward explained anything.
>>> Water evaporation increases with temperature, so the higher the surface
>>> temperature, the more efficient the latent heat cooling effect. About
>>> 70% of the surface is water, so there's always enough.
>>
>> The more water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the less radiation
>> from the surface that reaches space; the atmospheric temperature rises
>> until it reaches a new, higher balance of convection to radiation to
>> space.
>
> You're babbling. Can you translate that into some mechanism that makes
> sense?
It made sense.
> Better yet, just crawl back under the bridge and stop making a fool of
> yourself.
Ward goes straight to the personal attack. No surprise.
Bill Ward
As thermal energy, not photons.
>
>>>> When water evaporates, it cools the surface by absorbing latent heat.
>>>
>>> A simmerring pot convects just like a boiling pot. A boiling pot
>>> convects more rapidly and vigourously than a simmering pot. A
>>> simmering pot is still cooler than a boiling pot.
>>
>> And the surface is cooled by the absorbed latent heat. Your point?
>
> I think the point is that the atmosphere as a whole is gains heat when
> additional greenhouse gasses are added.
And loses it to space when the WV condenses to cloud.
> Ward seems to think that water
> vapor heals all wounds.
Better get your mind reading fantasy looked at. It's broken.
>>>> And thus unlike water, cannot carry latent heat or act as a
>>>> temperature regulator. CO2 affects only radiation from high
>>>> altitudes.
>>>
>>> By what property does carbon dioxide change its available energy
>>> states based on ambient pressure and/or temperature?
>
> That wasn't the statement. He didn't say CO2 does "change its available
> energy states based on ambient pressure and/or temperature". Maybe Ward
> simply doesn't understand the issue. Or he won't understand it.
Or it would make more sense if China Blue hadn't snipped the context.
>> You need to explain what you mean, assuming you have any clue what
>> you're referring to.
>
> I think he explained it as well as Ward explained anything.
>
>>>> Water evaporation increases with temperature, so the higher the
>>>> surface temperature, the more efficient the latent heat cooling
>>>> effect. About 70% of the surface is water, so there's always enough.
>>>
>>> The more water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the less
>>> radiation from the surface that reaches space; the atmospheric
>>> temperature rises until it reaches a new, higher balance of convection
>>> to radiation to space.
>>
>> You're babbling. Can you translate that into some mechanism that makes
>> sense?
>
> It made sense.
Yet you didn't explain it.
>> Better yet, just crawl back under the bridge and stop making a fool of
>> yourself.
>
> Ward goes straight to the personal attack. No surprise.
Go join China Blue. I'm running out of patience and getting cranky.
Bill Ward
> In article <hhmddf$5l8$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
>
>> >>> And thus unlike water, cannot carry latent heat or act as a
>> >>> temperature regulator. CO2 affects only radiation from high
>> >>> altitudes.
>> >>
>> >> By what property does carbon dioxide change its available energy
>> >> states based on ambient pressure and/or temperature?
>>
>> That wasn't the statement. He didn't say CO2 does "change its available
>> energy states based on ambient pressure and/or temperature". Maybe Ward
>> simply doesn't understand the issue. Or he won't understand it.
>
> Carbon dioxide would only affect radiation from high altitudes and not
> low if which photons it absorbs and emits (which are the differences of
> available energy states) vary according to pressure and temperature in
> the atmosphere.
Since CO2 is only effective in the 15u band, its peak radiation occurs
around 200K. That's far higher altitude and colder temperature than the
radiation from WV and clouds. See the "Atmospheric transmission" graph
link in the prior post.
Unum
Is that so? Explain how in your own words. Are you trying to claim greenhouse
gasses don't emit photons?
>>>>> When water evaporates, it cools the surface by absorbing latent heat.
>>>>
>>>> A simmerring pot convects just like a boiling pot. A boiling pot
>>>> convects more rapidly and vigourously than a simmering pot. A
>>>> simmering pot is still cooler than a boiling pot.
>>>
>>> And the surface is cooled by the absorbed latent heat. Your point?
>>
>> I think the point is that the atmosphere as a whole is gains heat when
>> additional greenhouse gasses are added.
>
> And loses it to space when the WV condenses to cloud.
Water vapor is pretty much confined to the troposphere isn't it. But other
greenhouse gasses are not. So explain to us how WV negates the effects of
GHG above the troposphere.
>> Ward seems to think that water
>> vapor heals all wounds.
>
> Better get your mind reading fantasy looked at. It's broken.
No fantasy required, in fact you stated it again a few sentences up;
"loses it to space when the WV condenses to cloud"
>>>>> And thus unlike water, cannot carry latent heat or act as a
>>>>> temperature regulator. CO2 affects only radiation from high
>>>>> altitudes.
>>>>
>>>> By what property does carbon dioxide change its available energy
>>>> states based on ambient pressure and/or temperature?
>>
>> That wasn't the statement. He didn't say CO2 does "change its available
>> energy states based on ambient pressure and/or temperature". Maybe Ward
>> simply doesn't understand the issue. Or he won't understand it.
>
> Or it would make more sense if China Blue hadn't snipped the context.
Lol, dumbass painted himself into a corner and blames someone else.
>>> You need to explain what you mean, assuming you have any clue what
>>> you're referring to.
>>
>> I think he explained it as well as Ward explained anything.
>>
>>>>> Water evaporation increases with temperature, so the higher the
>>>>> surface temperature, the more efficient the latent heat cooling
>>>>> effect. About 70% of the surface is water, so there's always enough.
>>>>
>>>> The more water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the less
>>>> radiation from the surface that reaches space; the atmospheric
>>>> temperature rises until it reaches a new, higher balance of convection
>>>> to radiation to space.
>>>
>>> You're babbling. Can you translate that into some mechanism that makes
>>> sense?
>>
>> It made sense.
>
> Yet you didn't explain it.
It made sense, what's there to explain?
>>> Better yet, just crawl back under the bridge and stop making a fool of
>>> yourself.
>>
>> Ward goes straight to the personal attack. No surprise.
>
> Go join China Blue. I'm running out of patience and getting cranky.
Getting cranky, lol. Why don't you run back under the porch, boy?
Bill Ward
> On 1/1/2010 10:16 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:08:50 -0600, Unum wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/1/2010 7:33 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:33:41 -0800, The China Blue Syndrome wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article<Qomdnc_frKQW_aPW...@giganews.com>,
>>>>> Bill Ward<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:05:39 -0800, The China Blue Syndrome wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> <94d243a9-78c4-4ca2-a691-
c430b8...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Photons are absorbed, temporarily storing their energy in the CO2 bonds.
At the next molecular collision, the stored energy is converted to
kinetic (thermal) energy. The process is reversible, converting thermal
energy into photons of corresponding energy. The result is a gas in
local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE), with photons exchanged in all
directions, but no net transfer of energy, because temperatures are also
equal.
>>>>>> When water evaporates, it cools the surface by absorbing latent
>>>>>> heat.
>>>>>
>>>>> A simmerring pot convects just like a boiling pot. A boiling pot
>>>>> convects more rapidly and vigourously than a simmering pot. A
>>>>> simmering pot is still cooler than a boiling pot.
>>>>
>>>> And the surface is cooled by the absorbed latent heat. Your point?
>>>
>>> I think the point is that the atmosphere as a whole is gains heat when
>>> additional greenhouse gasses are added.
>>
>> And loses it to space when the WV condenses to cloud.
>
> Water vapor is pretty much confined to the troposphere isn't it. But
> other greenhouse gasses are not. So explain to us how WV negates the
> effects of GHG above the troposphere.
It radiates at a temperature which increases with surface temperature.
The higher the surface temperature, the higher the dew point, resulting
in higher temperatures for the emitting cloud. The Stephan/Boltzmann
equation requires emitted power to increase with the fourth power of the
absolute temperature, so the surface cools faster.
>
>>> Ward seems to think that water
>>> vapor heals all wounds.
>>
>> Better get your mind reading fantasy looked at. It's broken.
>
> No fantasy required, in fact you stated it again a few sentences up;
> "loses it to space when the WV condenses to cloud"
How do you get from there to "heals all wounds"? It's just water doing
its thing.
>
>>>>>> And thus unlike water, cannot carry latent heat or act as a
>>>>>> temperature regulator. CO2 affects only radiation from high
>>>>>> altitudes.
>>>>>
>>>>> By what property does carbon dioxide change its available energy
>>>>> states based on ambient pressure and/or temperature?
>>>
>>> That wasn't the statement. He didn't say CO2 does "change its
>>> available energy states based on ambient pressure and/or temperature".
>>> Maybe Ward simply doesn't understand the issue. Or he won't understand
>>> it.
>>
>> Or it would make more sense if China Blue hadn't snipped the context.
>
> Lol, dumbass painted himself into a corner and blames someone else.
Let's allow readers to determine that.
Here's the relevant part of the post without the snips:
<quote>
[ChinaBlue]
> Carbon dioxide covers one side of the blackbody radiation, water vapour
> the other.
[BW]
WV emits on both the high energy and low energy sides of the LWIR
spectrum, CO2 only on the low energy side.
> They independently scatter different parts of the spectrum.
Both are gases. You are misusing "scattering".
> Water vapour concentration is limited, above which it condenses and
> percipitates.
When water evaporates, it cools the surface by absorbing latent heat. When
it convects up and condenses to cloud, it releases the latent heat as
sensible heat, which efficiently radiates broadband from the cloud as a
graybody. The cloud also reflects SW, lowering surface temperatures. Water
thus acts as a regulator of surface temperatures, counteracting any effect
from CO2.
> Carbon dioxide does not condense at surface pressure and temperature,
And thus unlike water, cannot carry latent heat or act as a temperature
regulator. CO2 affects only radiation from high altitudes.
> it has to be removed chemically or unnatural condensation. Water vapour
> cannot accumulate and its contribution has been about the same; carbon
> dioxide has accumulated and increases it contribution.
Water evaporation increases with temperature, so the higher the surface
temperature, the more efficient the latent heat cooling effect. About 70%
of the surface is water, so there's always enough.
> Because of the radiation from the earth is mostly linear and scatter is
> mostly spherical, you should expect scattering to increase as the square
> of the concentration.
The scary warming threats promoted by the AGW fraud depend on an assumed
positive feedback in climate models from water vapor. That has been shown
not to be present in the real world by satellite observation, sea surface
temperature measurements, and direct radiosonde temperature and humidity
measurements.
> Now say something smart or fuck off.
Your turn.
<\quote>
>
>>>> You need to explain what you mean, assuming you have any clue what
>>>> you're referring to.
>>>
>>> I think he explained it as well as Ward explained anything.
>>>
>>>>>> Water evaporation increases with temperature, so the higher the
>>>>>> surface temperature, the more efficient the latent heat cooling
>>>>>> effect. About 70% of the surface is water, so there's always
>>>>>> enough.
>>>>>
>>>>> The more water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the less
>>>>> radiation from the surface that reaches space; the atmospheric
>>>>> temperature rises until it reaches a new, higher balance of
>>>>> convection to radiation to space.
>>>>
>>>> You're babbling. Can you translate that into some mechanism that
>>>> makes sense?
>>>
>>> It made sense.
>>
>> Yet you didn't explain it.
>
> It made sense, what's there to explain?
>
>>>> Better yet, just crawl back under the bridge and stop making a fool
>>>> of yourself.
>>>
>>> Ward goes straight to the personal attack. No surprise.
>>
>> Go join China Blue. I'm running out of patience and getting cranky.
>
> Getting cranky, lol. Why don't you run back under the porch, boy?
No thanks. It's more fun watching you make a fool of yourself.
Why don't you at least try to learn a little bit of the relevant physics?
Here's a link that might help:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/heacon.html#heacon
Bill Ward
> In article <AZydnZTbH6PufKPW...@giganews.com>,
> Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Photons are absorbed, temporarily storing their energy in the CO2
>> bonds. At the next molecular collision, the stored energy is converted
>> to kinetic (thermal) energy. The process is reversible, converting
>> thermal energy into photons of corresponding energy. The result is a
>> gas in local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE), with photons exchanged in
>> all directions, but no net transfer of energy, because temperatures are
>> also equal.
>
> So you've concluded the atmosphere is not the source of the energy. Why
> that's brilliant. I guess we should look for alternative energy source,
> like, say, oh, the sun.
>
>> It radiates at a temperature which increases with surface temperature.
>> The higher the surface temperature, the higher the dew point, resulting
>> in higher temperatures for the emitting cloud. The Stephan/Boltzmann
>> equation requires emitted power to increase with the fourth power of
>> the absolute temperature, so the surface cools faster.
>
> Your argument then is a pot of boiling hot water cools to ambient faster
> than a pot of lukewarm water.
Nope, that's your argument, not mine.
> That's a simple experiment. Post your result.
Time for you to get back under the bridge. I'm done with you.
Stan de SD
wrote:
> In article <Qomdnc_frKQW_aPWnZ2dnUVZ_g5i4...@giganews.com>,
> Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:05:39 -0800, The China Blue Syndrome wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > Stan de SD <stand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> CO2 a more significant contributor to so-called "global warming" than
> > >> water vapor, which is not only present in greater quantities, but has a
> > >> much more significant and immediate effect on surface temperatures than
> > >> CO2. Go ahead, let's see you do it...
>
> > > Carbon dioxide covers one side of the blackbody radiation, water vapour
> > > the other.
>
> > WV emits on both the high energy and low energy sides of the LWIR
> > spectrum, CO2 only on the low energy side.
>
> the blackbody radition, water vapour the other.
You have an IR spectra for comparisons, little boy? The abosrption
spectra for H2O exhibits bands all over the spectra, and not just the
vapor form. CO2 has 3 major peaks corresponding to symmetrical,
asymmetrical, and bending of the ::O=C=O: molecule. However, there is
still a significant enough gap in the near IR region where CO2 and H2O
do not absorb, and this is where most of the energy is radiated out
into space. Now, I'm not sure how you brought "flourescence" into this
discussion regarding CO2, unless you are referring to some cleavage of
the C=O pi bond and a pi->pi* transition, but IIRC that happens WELL
above the energy range that causes typical translational and
rotational vibration (I'm sure Neil Bartlett will never forgive me,
but currently my inorganic chem texts are in storage in a rental space
600 miles away, with about 2 feet of snow in front of the door), and
should be somewhere in the UV range. That would be incident sunlight
coming in, NOT blackbody radiation from the Earth's surface...
> > > They independently scatter different parts of the spectrum.
>
> > Both are gases. You are misusing "scattering".
>
> They absorb photons and reemit in random direction. Call it what you want.
>
> > When water evaporates, it cools the surface by absorbing latent heat.
>
> A simmerring pot convects just like a boiling pot. A boiling pot convects more
> rapidly and vigourously than a simmering pot. A simmering pot is still cooler
> than a boiling pot.
So freaking what? The heat of vaporization at any given temperature is
still more than the heat capacity of bringing water from ambient temp
up to boiling. The product of (latent heat of vaporization*total mass
of H2O vapor), i.e, the total thermal energy locked up in water vapor
is still far greater than any similar product of mass of CO2*cleavage
of pi bonds or any other intermediate species. The energy released on
a daily basis by rainstorms is far greater than of any such
"fluorescence" of CO2 (which doesn't occur due to IR radiation
anyway).
>
> > And thus unlike water, cannot carry latent heat or act as a temperature
> > regulator. CO2 affects only radiation from high altitudes.
>
> By what property does carbon dioxide change its available energy states based on
> ambient pressure and/or temperature?
Increased pressure means more particles per volume and a
correspondingly reduced mean free path. In any case, with an
atmosphere that 78-79% N2, 20-21% O2, 1% water vapor, the 0.04% that
is CO2 is pretty inconsequential. Ignoring weather patterns for the
sake of simplicity, all gases that are "well mixed" in a given area
are pretty much in thermal equilibrium. Energy transfer from one gas
to another can occur regardless of whether the CO2 is colliding with
another CO2 molecule, or O2, N2, whatever.
> > Water evaporation increases with temperature, so the higher the surface
> > temperature, the more efficient the latent heat cooling effect. About
> > 70% of the surface is water, so there's always enough.
>
> The more water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the less radiation from the
> surface that reaches space; the atmospheric temperature rises until it reaches a
> new, higher balance of convection to radiation to space.
And you think that increase of concentration from 0.02% to 0.04% of a
gas that has just 3 sharp IR absorption bands in the range of
interest, and no phase/state change that would result of any heat
reservoir of significance anyway, would result in some type of
catastrophic effect? Get a clue...
Stan de SD
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:33:41 -0800, The China Blue Syndrome wrote:
>
>
>
> > Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:05:39 -0800, The China Blue Syndrome wrote:
>
> >> > In article
> >> > Stan de SD <stand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> CO2 a more significant contributor to so-called "global warming"
> >> >> than water vapor, which is not only present in greater quantities,
> >> >> but has a much more significant and immediate effect on surface
> >> >> temperatures than CO2. Go ahead, let's see you do it...
>
> >> > Carbon dioxide covers one side of the blackbody radiation, water
> >> > vapour the other.
>
> >> WV emits on both the high energy and low energy sides of the LWIR
> >> spectrum, CO2 only on the low energy side.
>
> > Fluoresence doesn't change the absorbtion. Carbon dioxide absorbs one
> > side of the blackbody radition, water vapour the other.
>
> Fluorescence has nothing to do with it. You're wrong on both counts:
>
>
> >> > They independently scatter different parts of the spectrum.
>
> >> Both are gases. You are misusing "scattering".
>
> > They absorb photons and reemit in random direction. Call it what you
> > want.
>
> Absorption/emission is simply transforming photons into thermal energy
> and vice versa. Scattering is changing the direction of existing photons
> without absorbing them.
>
> >> When water evaporates, it cools the surface by absorbing latent heat.
>
> > A simmerring pot convects just like a boiling pot. A boiling pot
> > convects more rapidly and vigourously than a simmering pot. A simmering
> > pot is still cooler than a boiling pot.
>
> And the surface is cooled by the absorbed latent heat. Your point?
>
> >> And thus unlike water, cannot carry latent heat or act as a temperature
> >> regulator. CO2 affects only radiation from high altitudes.
>
> > By what property does carbon dioxide change its available energy states
> > based on ambient pressure and/or temperature?
>
> You need to explain what you mean, assuming you have any clue what you're
> referring to.
China Boy, who changes his handle frequently and is unwilling to
archive his own posts, is more of a troll than a serious participant
around here...
Stan de SD
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:32:19 -0800 (PST), Stan de SD <stand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Sounds like ...
>
> Those voices in your head told you not to read the answer, didn't they.
>
> They're lying to you.
You mean the voices that explained inorganic chemistry when I sat in
the big lecture auditorium in Latimer Hall, took the exams, and passed
the class? Funny how the folks at Cal Berkeley seem to think I learned
something, as they awarded me a degree in Chemical Engineering some
years ago. Tell us what your credentials are regarding your knowledge
of atmospheric chemistry, dipstick. Sorry, but regurgitating crap on
Usenet doesn't count... :O|
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:33:41 -0800, The China Blue Syndrome wrote:
>
>
>
> > Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:05:39 -0800, The China Blue Syndrome wrote:
>
> >> > In article
> >> > Stan de SD <stand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> CO2 a more significant contributor to so-called "global warming"
> >> >> than water vapor, which is not only present in greater quantities,
> >> >> but has a much more significant and immediate effect on surface
> >> >> temperatures than CO2. Go ahead, let's see you do it...
>
> >> > Carbon dioxide covers one side of the blackbody radiation, water
> >> > vapour the other.
>
> >> WV emits on both the high energy and low energy sides of the LWIR
> >> spectrum, CO2 only on the low energy side.
>
> > Fluoresence doesn't change the absorbtion. Carbon dioxide absorbs one
> > side of the blackbody radition, water vapour the other.
>
> Fluorescence has nothing to do with it. You're wrong on both counts:
>
>
> >> > They independently scatter different parts of the spectrum.
>
> >> Both are gases. You are misusing "scattering".
>
> > They absorb photons and reemit in random direction. Call it what you
> > want.
>
> Absorption/emission is simply transforming photons into thermal energy
> and vice versa. Scattering is changing the direction of existing photons
> without absorbing them.
>
In the scattering of photons, for example from an atom, an initial
state photon with wave-number and polarization is absorbed by the atom
and a final state photon with wave-number and polarization is
emitted.
http://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node472.html
Bill, do yourself a favor, and stop pretending you understand science.
Unum
So greenhouse gasses do transfer energy via radiation after all, I'm glad
we've cleared that up.
>>>>>>> When water evaporates, it cools the surface by absorbing latent
>>>>>>> heat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A simmerring pot convects just like a boiling pot. A boiling pot
>>>>>> convects more rapidly and vigourously than a simmering pot. A
>>>>>> simmering pot is still cooler than a boiling pot.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the surface is cooled by the absorbed latent heat. Your point?
>>>>
>>>> I think the point is that the atmosphere as a whole is gains heat when
>>>> additional greenhouse gasses are added.
>>>
>>> And loses it to space when the WV condenses to cloud.
>>
>> Water vapor is pretty much confined to the troposphere isn't it. But
>> other greenhouse gasses are not. So explain to us how WV negates the
>> effects of GHG above the troposphere.
>
> It radiates at a temperature which increases with surface temperature.
> The higher the surface temperature, the higher the dew point, resulting
> in higher temperatures for the emitting cloud. The Stephan/Boltzmann
> equation requires emitted power to increase with the fourth power of the
> absolute temperature, so the surface cools faster.
>>
>>>> Ward seems to think that water
>>>> vapor heals all wounds.
>>>
>>> Better get your mind reading fantasy looked at. It's broken.
>>
>> No fantasy required, in fact you stated it again a few sentences up;
>> "loses it to space when the WV condenses to cloud"
>
> How do you get from there to "heals all wounds"? It's just water doing
> its thing.
I get there from your earlier remark. I said the atmosphere as a whole
gains heat when additional greenhouse gases are added, and you said "loses
it to space when the WV condenses to cloud".
>>>>>>> And thus unlike water, cannot carry latent heat or act as a
>>>>>>> temperature regulator. CO2 affects only radiation from high
>>>>>>> altitudes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By what property does carbon dioxide change its available energy
>>>>>> states based on ambient pressure and/or temperature?
>>>>
>>>> That wasn't the statement. He didn't say CO2 does "change its
>>>> available energy states based on ambient pressure and/or temperature".
>>>> Maybe Ward simply doesn't understand the issue. Or he won't understand
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> Or it would make more sense if China Blue hadn't snipped the context.
>>
>> Lol, dumbass painted himself into a corner and blames someone else.
>
> Let's allow readers to determine that.
> Here's the relevant part of the post without the snips:
Here's a newsflash for you. Once something has been posted to the newsgroups
it *never goes away*. If somebody wants to sift through previous posts
they can do that at any time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with trimming
previously posted text from a response.
>>>>> Better yet, just crawl back under the bridge and stop making a fool
>>>>> of yourself.
>>>>
>>>> Ward goes straight to the personal attack. No surprise.
>>>
>>> Go join China Blue. I'm running out of patience and getting cranky.
>>
>> Getting cranky, lol. Why don't you run back under the porch, boy?
>
> No thanks. It's more fun watching you make a fool of yourself.
>
> Why don't you at least try to learn a little bit of the relevant physics?
>
> Here's a link that might help:
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/heacon.html#heacon
Lol, so you think that diagram is suitable for figuring out the behavior
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, crankyboy? Here's a link for you
that actually explains most of the relevant mechanisms;
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html
See in particular the section "Radiative Forcing & Global Warming
Potential (GWP)"
"the Global Warming Potential (GWP) takes into account the fact that a
GHG that lingers longer has a greater cumulative contribution to the
greenhouse effect over its "lifetime" than does a gas that is quickly
removed. Recall that water vapor tends to cycle out of the atmosphere in
a matter of days; water vapor, therefore, has a negligibly small GWP.
Methane takes, on average, about 12 years to disappear from the
atmosphere. Carbon dioxide takes centuries."
Bill Ward
Read it again. It says,"no net transfer of energy". It's in LTE,
remember?
And that has what to do with "heals all wounds"?
>>>>>>>> And thus unlike water, cannot carry latent heat or act as a
>>>>>>>> temperature regulator. CO2 affects only radiation from high
>>>>>>>> altitudes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By what property does carbon dioxide change its available energy
>>>>>>> states based on ambient pressure and/or temperature?
>>>>>
>>>>> That wasn't the statement. He didn't say CO2 does "change its
>>>>> available energy states based on ambient pressure and/or
>>>>> temperature". Maybe Ward simply doesn't understand the issue. Or he
>>>>> won't understand it.
>>>>
>>>> Or it would make more sense if China Blue hadn't snipped the context.
>>>
>>> Lol, dumbass painted himself into a corner and blames someone else.
>>
>> Let's allow readers to determine that. Here's the relevant part of the
>> post without the snips:
>
> Here's a newsflash for you. Once something has been posted to the
> newsgroups it *never goes away*. If somebody wants to sift through
> previous posts they can do that at any time. There is absolutely nothing
> wrong with trimming previously posted text from a response.
Primarily, I like to make it easy for readers to see for themselves how
you attempt to distort the meaning of posts by selective snipping. I can
see why that might annoy you, but that's just a side benefit.
>>>>>> Better yet, just crawl back under the bridge and stop making a fool
>>>>>> of yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ward goes straight to the personal attack. No surprise.
>>>>
>>>> Go join China Blue. I'm running out of patience and getting cranky.
>>>
>>> Getting cranky, lol. Why don't you run back under the porch, boy?
>>
>> No thanks. It's more fun watching you make a fool of yourself.
>>
>> Why don't you at least try to learn a little bit of the relevant
>> physics?
>>
>> Here's a link that might help:
>>
>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/heacon.html#heacon
>
> Lol, so you think that diagram is suitable for figuring out the behavior
> of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, crankyboy? Here's a link for you
> that actually explains most of the relevant mechanisms;
>
> http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/
greenhouse_effect_gases.html
I prefer physics to propaganda. Surely you don't take that link
seriously. Did you notice there was no mention of LTE, lapse rate,
convection, or latent heat? Some believe cloud formation and
precipitation might play an important role in the climate system.
Leaving them out because they're impossible to model seems like a very
short-sighted approach.
Radiative transfer alone just doesn't fit reality.
Plus, the explanation is based on the Trenberth cartoon, which even he
has called a "travesty" in the leaked emails because it couldn't explain
the recent lack of warming.
> See in particular the section "Radiative Forcing & Global Warming
> Potential (GWP)"
>
> "the Global Warming Potential (GWP) takes into account the fact that a
> GHG that lingers longer has a greater cumulative contribution to the
> greenhouse effect over its "lifetime" than does a gas that is quickly
> removed. Recall that water vapor tends to cycle out of the atmosphere in
> a matter of days; water vapor, therefore, has a negligibly small GWP.
> Methane takes, on average, about 12 years to disappear from the
> atmosphere. Carbon dioxide takes centuries."
Irrelevant. Those compounds are continuously exchanged with the ocean.
JohnM
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:18:57 -0600, Unum wrote:
> > On 1/2/2010 12:02 AM, Bill Ward wrote:
> >> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:22:47 -0600, Unum wrote:
>
> >>> On 1/1/2010 10:16 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:08:50 -0600, Unum wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 1/1/2010 7:33 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:33:41 -0800, The China Blue Syndrome wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Bill Ward<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:05:39 -0800, The China Blue Syndrome
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>> <94d243a9-78c4-4ca2-a691-
> >>>>>>>>> Stan de SD<stand...@gmail.com> wrote:
No he didn't. Essentially he said it was a travesty that recent years
have not overturned the one-off, record temperature of 1998. There's
been enough warming to make the first decade of the 21st C hotter than
the last decade of the 20th.
> > See in particular the section "Radiative Forcing & Global Warming
> > Potential (GWP)"
>
> > "the Global Warming Potential (GWP) takes into account the fact that a
> > GHG that lingers longer has a greater cumulative contribution to the
> > greenhouse effect over its "lifetime" than does a gas that is quickly
> > removed. Recall that water vapor tends to cycle out of the atmosphere in
> > a matter of days; water vapor, therefore, has a negligibly small GWP.
> > Methane takes, on average, about 12 years to disappear from the
> > atmosphere. Carbon dioxide takes centuries."
>
> Irrelevant. Those compounds are continuously exchanged with the ocean.
Very relevant. Add more to the system and the amount in each phase has
to re-adjust to give the same chemical potential on each side of the
interface. You keep making the same mistakes over and over, Bilbo. Are
you just being your disingenuous self or is senility taking control?
Bill Ward
Here it is:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.phpeid=1048&filename=1255352257.txt
[Trenberth]
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment
and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the
August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more
warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is
inadequate."
Trenberth's cartoon is based on the AGW theory that he admits can't
explain the lack of warming at the moment (in 2009), which he considers a
travesty. How do you spin that to make it say anything about 1998? If
I weren't so polite, I'd suggest you are deliberately trying to mislead
readers.
>> > See in particular the section "Radiative Forcing & Global Warming
>> > Potential (GWP)"
>>
>> > "the Global Warming Potential (GWP) takes into account the fact that
>> > a GHG that lingers longer has a greater cumulative contribution to
>> > the greenhouse effect over its "lifetime" than does a gas that is
>> > quickly removed. Recall that water vapor tends to cycle out of the
>> > atmosphere in a matter of days; water vapor, therefore, has a
>> > negligibly small GWP. Methane takes, on average, about 12 years to
>> > disappear from the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide takes centuries."
>>
>> Irrelevant. Those compounds are continuously exchanged with the ocean.
>
> Very relevant. Add more to the system and the amount in each phase has
> to re-adjust to give the same chemical potential on each side of the
> interface. You keep making the same mistakes over and over, Bilbo. Are
> you just being your disingenuous self or is senility taking control?
I don't think you're going senile, but you do need to read what you're
commenting on more carefully.
>> >"... [A] GHG that lingers longer has a greater cumulative
>> >contribution to the greenhouse effect over its "lifetime" than does a
>> >gas that is quickly removed."
Nothing about adding more in there, just the flat statement. GHGs are in
near equilibrium with the ocean. The "lifetime" of individual molecules
is irrelevant. Molecules don't have serial numbers.
Give it up, John, you're just embarrassing yourself, you're not fooling
anyone.
Unum
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:18:57 -0600, Unum wrote:
>>>>>> I think the point is that the atmosphere as a whole is gains heat
>>>>>> when additional greenhouse gasses are added.
>>>>>
>>>>> And loses it to space when the WV condenses to cloud.
>>>>
>>>> Water vapor is pretty much confined to the troposphere isn't it. But
>>>> other greenhouse gasses are not. So explain to us how WV negates the
>>>> effects of GHG above the troposphere.
>>>
>>> It radiates at a temperature which increases with surface temperature.
>>> The higher the surface temperature, the higher the dew point, resulting
>>> in higher temperatures for the emitting cloud. The Stephan/Boltzmann
>>> equation requires emitted power to increase with the fourth power of
>>> the absolute temperature, so the surface cools faster.
>>>>
>>>>>> Ward seems to think that water
>>>>>> vapor heals all wounds.
>>>>>
>>>>> Better get your mind reading fantasy looked at. It's broken.
>>>>
>>>> No fantasy required, in fact you stated it again a few sentences up;
>>>> "loses it to space when the WV condenses to cloud"
>>>
>>> How do you get from there to "heals all wounds"? It's just water doing
>>> its thing.
>>
>> I get there from your earlier remark. I said the atmosphere as a whole
>> gains heat when additional greenhouse gases are added, and you said
>> "loses it to space when the WV condenses to cloud".
>
> And that has what to do with "heals all wounds"?
It has to do with the fact that if you don't want to understand the point
someone is making then no amount of explanation will break through the
ignorance, but I think the readers can make their own judgment.
>>>>>>>>> And thus unlike water, cannot carry latent heat or act as a
>>>>>>>>> temperature regulator. CO2 affects only radiation from high
>>>>>>>>> altitudes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By what property does carbon dioxide change its available energy
>>>>>>>> states based on ambient pressure and/or temperature?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That wasn't the statement. He didn't say CO2 does "change its
>>>>>> available energy states based on ambient pressure and/or
>>>>>> temperature". Maybe Ward simply doesn't understand the issue. Or he
>>>>>> won't understand it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or it would make more sense if China Blue hadn't snipped the context.
>>>>
>>>> Lol, dumbass painted himself into a corner and blames someone else.
>>>
>>> Let's allow readers to determine that. Here's the relevant part of the
>>> post without the snips:
>>
>> Here's a newsflash for you. Once something has been posted to the
>> newsgroups it *never goes away*. If somebody wants to sift through
>> previous posts they can do that at any time. There is absolutely nothing
>> wrong with trimming previously posted text from a response.
>
> Primarily, I like to make it easy for readers to see for themselves how
> you attempt to distort the meaning of posts by selective snipping. I can
> see why that might annoy you, but that's just a side benefit.
Nothing was selectively snipped, but obviously anyone can go look if they
so choose. Sophomoric ill-temper like the next few sentences maybe.
>>>>>>> Better yet, just crawl back under the bridge and stop making a fool
>>>>>>> of yourself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ward goes straight to the personal attack. No surprise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Go join China Blue. I'm running out of patience and getting cranky.
>>>>
>>>> Getting cranky, lol. Why don't you run back under the porch, boy?
>>>
>>> No thanks. It's more fun watching you make a fool of yourself.
>>>
>>> Why don't you at least try to learn a little bit of the relevant
>>> physics?
>>>
>>> Here's a link that might help:
>>>
>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/heacon.html#heacon
>>
>> Lol, so you think that diagram is suitable for figuring out the behavior
>> of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, crankyboy? Here's a link for you
>> that actually explains most of the relevant mechanisms;
>>
>> http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/
> greenhouse_effect_gases.html
>
> I prefer physics to propaganda. Surely you don't take that link
> seriously. Did you notice there was no mention of LTE, lapse rate,
> convection, or latent heat? Some believe cloud formation and
> precipitation might play an important role in the climate system.
> Leaving them out because they're impossible to model seems like a very
> short-sighted approach.
Sorry if your personal hot buttons didn't get the prominence you think
they deserve, but the relevant principles are clearly shown in the energy
budget diagram. This is all in contrast to the cluster of labeled cartoon
bubbles you offered as an explanation, lol.
> Radiative transfer alone just doesn't fit reality.
Right. And nobody has ever said it did as far as I know. Likewise your
precious LTE, convection, and water vapor alone don't fit reality.
> Plus, the explanation is based on the Trenberth cartoon, which even he
> has called a "travesty" in the leaked emails because it couldn't explain
> the recent lack of warming.
Lol, the explanation is based on well-established science. Typically, you
retreat to the stolen emails rather than address the actual principles.
>> See in particular the section "Radiative Forcing& Global Warming
>> Potential (GWP)"
>>
>> "the Global Warming Potential (GWP) takes into account the fact that a
>> GHG that lingers longer has a greater cumulative contribution to the
>> greenhouse effect over its "lifetime" than does a gas that is quickly
>> removed. Recall that water vapor tends to cycle out of the atmosphere in
>> a matter of days; water vapor, therefore, has a negligibly small GWP.
>> Methane takes, on average, about 12 years to disappear from the
>> atmosphere. Carbon dioxide takes centuries."
>
> Irrelevant. Those compounds are continuously exchanged with the ocean.
Bullshit, you must not be able to understand the physics. GHG concentration
increases as emissions rise due to human contributions to the carbon cycle.
Note the phrase "water vapor, therefore, has a negligibly small GWP".
Bill Ward
I'm sure they will.
JohnM
Nice try at obfuscation with a beautifully constructed strawman. You
really
are the master at this form of disingenuous waffling. No doubt
everyone,
including you, knows exactly what I am driving at.
> Give it up, John, you're just embarrassing yourself, you're not fooling
> anyone.
Unlike yourself, I'm not actually trying to fool anyone. I couldn't
hope to compete
with the snake-oily rhetoric that falls from your fingers.
*us*
>You mean
I mean what I typed. It's your problem
that you can't read for comprehension.
You still have no data.
You may not even know what it is.
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:32:19 -0800 (PST), Stan de SD <stan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Sounds like ...
Those voices in your head told you not to read the answer, didn't they.
They're lying to you.
Meanwhile, the answer is still right in front of you:
>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:35:40 -0800 (PST), US_Army_Nutcase <bella...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 31, 10:18�am, Stan de SD <stand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 30, 12:55�pm, * US * wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:23:47 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > >The burden of providing evidence falls on
>>>
>>> > You.
>>>
>>> > You have no data.
>>>
>>> > Others do have data that you can't dispute,
>>> > because you have no data.
>>>
>>> > You want to perpetrate waste and pollution
>>> > and harm to life, so corporatists can profit.
>>> > You do that without any valid basis.
>>>
>>> If you believe that CO2 is indeed the culprit to warming temperatures,
>>> can you actually explain the mechanism that causes this to happen? It
>>> would be interesting to see if you understand yourself. I doubt you
>>> can, because if you had any type of scientific background, you would
>>> know that the main "greenhouse gas" on Earth is H2O, not CO2...
>>
>>Sounds like someone got a book on Water Vapor for Christmas!
>>
>>Now here you go, illiterate dipshit, read and educate yourself until
>>your dimwitted heart is content. Or continue to stick your flat-
>>earther, dumbfuck head in the sand while us here in the reality-based
>>community continue to laugh at you. Your choice.
>>
>>http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp
>>
>>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/
Good links.
*us*
>... getting cornholed...
No one had asked about you.
mrbawana2u
wrote:
> [who cares?]
> the turdtapper is never getting out.
*us*
>... the turdtapper ...
No one had inquired as to any of your nicknames.
mrbawana2u
eating shit wrote:
> [Who cares? garbage flushed]
========================================
In addition to the “global warming” rip-off, you can add
another huge international racketeering operation—
the H1N1 “pandemic” of 2009.
Both of these ploys were designed to fleece the
western nations of billions, possibly trillions,
of dollars. In the case of the H1N1 scam, the
western governments have already coughed up
billions of dollars for vaccines to prevent a
bogus “pandemic.” That means that we,
the taxpayers, have been ripped-off yet again.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18527
=======================================
the scientific evidence for AGW is remarkably weak.
At Icecap, Lee Gerhard, geologist and reviewer for
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
sums up the key scientific evidence with admirable brevity:
It is crucial that scientists are factually accurate
when they do speak out, that they ignore media
hype and maintain a clinical detachment from
social or other agendas. There are facts and
data that are ignored in the maelstrom of
social and economic agendas swirling
about Copenhagen. Greenhouse gases
and their effects are well-known.
Here are some of things we know:
• The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor,
comprising approximately 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect.
• Carbon dioxide concentration has been continually rising for
nearly 100 years.
It continues to rise, but carbon dioxide concentrations at present are
near the lowest in geologic history.
• Temperature change correlation with carbon dioxide levels is not
statistically significant.
• There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels
to temperature changes.
• The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically
declines with increasing concentration. At present levels,
any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect.
We also know a lot about Earth temperature changes:
• Global temperature changes naturally all of the time,
in both directions and at many scales of intensity.
• The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934,
not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records
in the world.
• Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year
cycle,
and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling
absolutely
falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling
factor in Earth temperature.
• Voluminous historic records demonstrate the Medieval Climate
Optimum (MCO)
was real and that the "hockey stick" graphic that attempted to deny
that fact was at best
bad science. The MCO was considerably warmer than the end of the 20th
century.
• During the last 100 years, temperature has both risen and
fallen, including
the present cooling. All the changes in temperature of the last 100
years are in
normal historic ranges, both in absolute value and, most importantly,
rate of change.
Contrary to many public statements:
• Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the
cause of the temperature change.
• Global hurricane, cyclonic and major storm activity is near 30-
year lows.
Any increase in cost of damages by storms is a product of increasing
population density in vulnerable areas such as along the shores and
property value inflation, not due to any increase in frequency or
severity of storms.
• Polar bears have survived and thrived over periods of extreme
cold and extreme warmth over hundreds of thousands of years
extremes far in excess of modern temperature changes.
• The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger
than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice
extent was significantly above the 30-year average.
There are only 30 years of records.
• Rate and magnitude of sea level changes observed during the
last 100 years are within normal historical ranges. Current sea level
rise is tiny and, at most, justifies a prediction of perhaps ten
centimeters rise in this century.
The present climate debate is a classic conflict between data
and computer programs. The computer programs are the source
of concern over climate change and global warming, not the data.
Data are measurements. Computer programs are artificial constructs.
Public announcements use a great deal of hyperbole and
inflammatory language. For instance, the word "ever" is
misused by media and in public pronouncements alike.
It does not mean "in the last 20 years," or "the last 70 years."
"Ever" means the last 4.5 billion years.
For example, some argue that the Arctic is melting,
with the warmest-ever temperatures. One should ask,
"How long is ever?" The answer is since 1979.
And then ask, "Is it still warming?" The answer
is unequivocally "No." Earth temperatures are cooling.
Similarly, the word "unprecedented" cannot be
legitimately used to describe any climate change in the last 8,000
years.
=============================================================
The "Science" Mantra
By Thomas Sowell
Science is one of the great achievements of the human mind
and the biggest reason why we live not only longer but more
vigorously in our old age, in addition to all the ways in which
it provides us with things that make life easier and more enjoyable.
Like anything valuable, science has been seized upon by politicians
and ideologues,
and used to forward their own agendas. This started long ago, as far
back as the
18th century, when the Marquis de Condorcet coined the term "social
science"
to describe various theories he favored. In the 19th century, Karl
Marx and
Friedrich Engels distinguished their own brand of socialism as
"scientific socialism."
By the 20th century, all sorts of notions wrapped themselves in the
mantle of "science."
"Global warming" hysteria is only the latest in this long line of
notions,
whose main argument is that there is no argument, because it is
"science."
The recently revealed destruction of raw data at the bottom of the
global warming hysteria, as well as revelations of attempts to
prevent critics of this hysteria from being published in leading
journals,
suggests that the disinterested search for truth-- the hallmark of
real science--
has taken a back seat to a political crusade.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/22/the_science_mantra__99638.html
we need to look at the way Kyoto has turned into cash for many of the
biggest names
in the climate change world, and to do that we need to understand how
the whole
carbon trading scheme works.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-how-to-follow-the-money/?print=1
*us*
>... sucking dog cock and
>eating shit ...
No one had asked about your personal habits,
but that does explain why you're too busy to
locate any actual data.
mrbawana2u
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/22/the_science_mant...
we need to look at the way Kyoto has turned into cash for many of the
biggest names
in the climate change world, and to do that we need to understand how
the whole
carbon trading scheme works.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-how-to-follow-the-money/?pri...
*us*
>... sucking dog cock and
>eating shit ...
Were you not preoccupied with that, perhaps
you could learn what data is, and even manage
to locate some.
Bawana
Palin In 2010
> On Jan 11, 5:11 pm, * UScuttlenutts * between
> sucking dog cock and eating shit wrote:
>
> > [Who cares? garbage flushed]
>
> ========================================
> In addition to the “global warming” rip-off, you can add
> another huge international racketeering operation—
> the H1N1 “pandemic” of 2009.
>
Science is a big conspiracy Obama. It's all lies. Just like 9/11
and the Holocaust.
Wjy would anyone want to learn science when all they are learning is
lies?
mrbawana2u
sucking dog cock and eating shit wrote:
> On Jan 11, 7:59 pm, Bawana <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 11, 5:11 pm, * UScuttlenutts * between
> > sucking dog cock and eating shit wrote:
>
> > > [Who cares? garbage flushed]
>
> > ========================================
> > In addition to the “global warming” rip-off, you can add
> > another huge international racketeering operation—
> > the H1N1 “pandemic” of 2009.
>
when are you getting out, fucktard?
*us*
for the environmental damage it does in general.
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:59:54 -0800 (PST), Bawana <mrbaw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>... rip-off...
Exxon says US taxpayers should fund the cleanup
of their Valdez debacle.
*us*
>... rip-off...
Exxon says US taxpayers should fund the cleanup
of their Valdez debacle.
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:49:07 -0800 (PST), mrbawana2u <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
mrbawana2u
sucking dog cock and eating shit wrote:
> [who cares?]
=============================================================
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/22/the_science_mantra__99638.html
we need to look at the way Kyoto has turned into cash for many of the
biggest names
in the climate change world, and to do that we need to understand how
the whole
carbon trading scheme works.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-how-to-follow-the-money/?print=1
*us*
>...sucking dog cock and eating shit ...
You're also expecting others to pay for your polluting
corporate/fascist masters.
mrbawana2u
mrbawana2u
*us*
>... sucking dog cock and eating shit...
> the turdtapper ...
No one had asked about you. You can't refute the
fact that you want everyone to have to pay so your
fascist masters can pillage and pollute the world.
*us*
mrbawana2u
sucking dog cock and eating shit wrote:
> [Who cares? garbage flushed]
========================================
In addition to the “global warming” rip-off, you can add
another huge international racketeering operation—
the H1N1 “pandemic” of 2009.
Both of these ploys were designed to fleece the
mrbawana2u
mrbawana2u
sucking dog cock and eating shit wrote:
> [Who cares? garbage flushed]
========================================
In addition to the “global warming” rip-off, you can add
another huge international racketeering operation—
the H1N1 “pandemic” of 2009.
Both of these ploys were designed to fleece the
mrbawana2u
> [Who cares? garbage flushed]
=============================================================
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/22/the_science_mant...
we need to look at the way Kyoto has turned into cash for many of the
biggest names
in the climate change world, and to do that we need to understand how
the whole
carbon trading scheme works.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-how-to-follow-the-money/?pri...
*us*
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:38:24 -0800 (PST), mrbawana2u <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...sucking dog cock and eating shit ...
If you weren't preoccupied with that, perhaps
you could learn something.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/05/22/heres-the-data-on-global-warming/
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:39:07 -0800 (PST), mrgarbage <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...garbage ...
It's all you have. You don't have any data.
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:27:16 -0800 (PST), mrbawana2u <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>... sucking dog cock and eating shit...
> the turdtapper ...
No one had asked about you. You can't refute the
fact that you want everyone to have to pay so your
fascist masters can pillage and pollute the world.
In fact, Exxon wants everyone else to have to pay
*us*
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:38:47 -0800 (PST), mrbawana2u <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...nutts...
It's your best excuse for all your failures.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:39:23 -0800 (PST), mrbawana2u <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>... flushed...
You're dizzy from circling the drain.
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:38:24 -0800 (PST), mrbawana2u <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...sucking dog cock and eating shit ...
If you weren't preoccupied with that, perhaps
you could learn something.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/05/22/heres-the-data-on-global-warming/
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:39:07 -0800 (PST), mrgarbage <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...garbage ...
It's all you have. You don't have any data.
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:27:16 -0800 (PST), mrbawana2u <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>... sucking dog cock and eating shit...
> the turdtapper ...
No one had asked about you. You can't refute the
fact that you want everyone to have to pay so your
fascist masters can pillage and pollute the world.
In fact, Exxon wants everyone else to have to pay
for the environmental damage it does in general.
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:59:54 -0800 (PST), Bawana <mrbaw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*us*
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:39:07 -0800 (PST), mrgarbage <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...garbage ...
It's all you have. You don't have any data.
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:27:16 -0800 (PST), mrbawana2u <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
*us*
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:39:23 -0800 (PST), mrbawana2u <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>... flushed...
You're dizzy from circling the drain.
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:38:24 -0800 (PST), mrbawana2u <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...sucking dog cock and eating shit ...
If you weren't preoccupied with that, perhaps
you could learn something.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/05/22/heres-the-data-on-global-warming/
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:39:07 -0800 (PST), mrgarbage <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...garbage ...
It's all you have. You don't have any data.
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:27:16 -0800 (PST), mrbawana2u <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>... sucking dog cock and eating shit...
> the turdtapper ...
No one had asked about you. You can't refute the
fact that you want everyone to have to pay so your
fascist masters can pillage and pollute the world.
In fact, Exxon wants everyone else to have to pay
for the environmental damage it does in general.
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:59:54 -0800 (PST), Bawana <mrbaw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bawana
Bawana
*us*
in the past is crucial to understanding how they will change in the future."
*us*
mrbawana2u
sucking dog cock and eating shit wrote:
> [who cares?]
mrbawana2u
> [who cares?]
=============================================================
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/22/the_science_mant...
we need to look at the way Kyoto has turned into cash for many of the
biggest names
in the climate change world, and to do that we need to understand how
the whole
carbon trading scheme works.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-how-to-follow-the-money/?pri...
mrbawana2u
sucking dog cock and eating shit wrote:
> [who cares?]
mrbawana2u
sucking dog cock and eating shit wrote:
> [who cares?]
*us*
*us*
*us*
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/05/22/heres-the-data-on-global-warming/
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:39:07 -0800 (PST), mrgarbage <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...garbage ...
It's all you have. You don't have any data.
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:27:16 -0800 (PST), mrbawana2u <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
*us*
"Knowing how these systems are changing and how they have changed
in the past is crucial to understanding how they will change in the future."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:39:23 -0800 (PST), mrbawana2u <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>... flushed...
You're dizzy from circling the drain.
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:38:24 -0800 (PST), mrbawana2u <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...sucking dog cock and eating shit ...
If you weren't preoccupied with that, perhaps
you could learn something.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/05/22/heres-the-data-on-global-warming/
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:39:07 -0800 (PST), mrgarbage <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...garbage ...
It's all you have. You don't have any data.
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:27:16 -0800 (PST), mrbawana2u <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>... sucking dog cock and eating shit...
> the turdtapper ...
No one had asked about you. You can't refute the
fact that you want everyone to have to pay so your
fascist masters can pillage and pollute the world.
In fact, Exxon wants everyone else to have to pay
for the environmental damage it does in general.
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:59:54 -0800 (PST), Bawana <mrbaw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>... rip-off...
>... the turdtapper ...
>... getting cornholed...
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/11/30/0152244/Where-the-Global-Warming-Data-Is?from=rss
>...moron ...
You.
You have no data.
>... Kool-Aid drinkers
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:39:23 -0800 (PST), mrbawana2u <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>... flushed...
You're dizzy from circling the drain.
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:38:24 -0800 (PST), mrbawana2u <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...sucking dog cock and eating shit ...
If you weren't preoccupied with that, perhaps
you could learn something.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/05/22/heres-the-data-on-global-warming/
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:39:07 -0800 (PST), mrgarbage <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...garbage ...
It's all you have. You don't have any data.
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:27:16 -0800 (PST), mrbawana2u <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>... sucking dog cock and eating shit...
> the turdtapper ...
No one had asked about you. You can't refute the
fact that you want everyone to have to pay so your
fascist masters can pillage and pollute the world.
In fact, Exxon wants everyone else to have to pay
for the environmental damage it does in general.
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:59:54 -0800 (PST), Bawana <mrbaw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
mrbawana2u
> Notice how the clueless denier has to run away from this:
>
> "Knowing how these systems are changing and how they have changed
> in the past is crucial to understanding how they will change in the future."
>
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
>
> >... flushed...
>
> You're dizzy from circling the drain.
>
> http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures
>
> >...sucking dog cock and eating shit ...
>
> If you weren't preoccupied with that, perhaps
> you could learn something.
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:39:07 -0800 (PST), mrgarbage <mrbawan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >...garbage ...
>
> It's all you have. You don't have any data.
>
> >... sucking dog cock and eating shit...
> > the turdtapper ...
>
> No one had asked about you. You can't refute the
> fact that you want everyone to have to pay so your
> fascist masters can pillage and pollute the world.
>
> In fact, Exxon wants everyone else to have to pay
> for the environmental damage it does in general.
>
> >... rip-off...
>
> Exxon says US taxpayers should fund the cleanup
> of their Valdez debacle.
>
> >... sucking dog cock and
> >eating shit ...
>
> Were you not preoccupied with that, perhaps
> you could learn what data is, and even manage
> to locate some.
>
> >... sucking dog cock and
> >eating shit ...
>
> No one had asked about your personal habits,
> but that does explain why you're too busy to
> locate any actual data.
>
> >... the turdtapper ...
>
> No one had inquired as to any of your nicknames.
>
> >... getting cornholed...
>
> No one had asked about you.
>
>
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:50:55 -0800 (PST), "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >...moron ...
>
> That's your best excuse for your inability to
> learn science.
>
> >The burden of providing evidence falls on
>
> You.
>
> You have no data.
>
> Others do have data that you can't dispute,
> because you have no data.
>
> You want to perpetrate waste and pollution
> and harm to life, so corporatists can profit.
> You do that without any valid basis.
>
> >... Kool-Aid drinkers
>
> Exxon is pissing down your throat, moron.
>
> noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:39:23 -0800 (PST), mrbawana2u <mrbawan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >... flushed...
>
> You're dizzy from circling the drain.
>
> http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures
>
> >...sucking dog cock and eating shit ...
>
> If you weren't preoccupied with that, perhaps
> you could learn something.
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:39:07 -0800 (PST), mrgarbage <mrbawan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >...garbage ...
>
> It's all you have. You don't have any data.
>
> >... sucking dog cock and eating shit...
> > the turdtapper ...
>
> No one had asked about you. You can't refute the
> fact that you want everyone to have to pay so your
> fascist masters can pillage and pollute the world.
>
> In fact, Exxon wants everyone else to have to pay
> for the environmental damage it does in general.
>
> >... rip-off...
>
> Exxon says US taxpayers should fund the cleanup
> of their Valdez debacle.
>
> >... sucking dog cock and
> >eating shit ...
>
> Were you not preoccupied with that, perhaps
> you could learn what data is, and even manage
> to locate some.
>
> >... sucking dog cock and
> >eating shit ...
>
> No one had asked about your personal habits,
> but that does explain why you're too busy to
> locate any actual data.
>
> >... the turdtapper ...
>
> No one had inquired as to any of your nicknames.
>
> >... getting cornholed...
>
> No one had asked about you.
>
>
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:50:55 -0800 (PST), "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >...moron ...
>
> That's your best excuse for your inability to
> learn science.
>
> >The burden of providing evidence falls on
>
> You.
>
> You have no data.
>
> Others do have data that you can't dispute,
> because you have no data.
>
> You want to perpetrate waste and pollution
> and harm to life, so corporatists can profit.
> You do that without any valid basis.
>
> >... Kool-Aid drinkers
>
> Exxon is pissing down your throat, moron.
>
mrbawana2u
Bawana
Bawana
> The denier has admitted that he can't read this:
>
> "the most relevant sites for global warming"
>
> http://www.istl.org/01-fall/internet.html
>
> >...nutts...
>
> It's your best excuse for all your failures.
>
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
>
> >... flushed...
>
> You're dizzy from circling the drain.
>
> http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures
>
> >...sucking dog cock and eating shit ...
>
> If you weren't preoccupied with that, perhaps
> you could learn something.
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:39:07 -0800 (PST), mrgarbage <mrbawan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >...garbage ...
>
> It's all you have. You don't have any data.
>
> >... sucking dog cock and eating shit...
> > the turdtapper ...
>
> No one had asked about you. You can't refute the
> fact that you want everyone to have to pay so your
> fascist masters can pillage and pollute the world.
>
> In fact, Exxon wants everyone else to have to pay
> for the environmental damage it does in general.
>
> >... rip-off...
>
> Exxon says US taxpayers should fund the cleanup
> of their Valdez debacle.
>
> >... sucking dog cock and
> >eating shit ...
>
> Were you not preoccupied with that, perhaps
> you could learn what data is, and even manage
> to locate some.
>
> >... sucking dog cock and
> >eating shit ...
>
> No one had asked about your personal habits,
> but that does explain why you're too busy to
> locate any actual data.
>
> >... the turdtapper ...
>
> No one had inquired as to any of your nicknames.
>
> >... getting cornholed...
>
> No one had asked about you.
>
>
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:50:55 -0800 (PST), "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >...moron ...
>
> That's your best excuse for your inability to
> learn science.
>
> >The burden of providing evidence falls on
>
> You.
>
> You have no data.
>
> Others do have data that you can't dispute,
> because you have no data.
>
> You want to perpetrate waste and pollution
> and harm to life, so corporatists can profit.
> You do that without any valid basis.
>
> >... Kool-Aid drinkers
>
> Exxon is pissing down your throat, moron.
>
Bawana
> [Who cares? garbage flushed]
*us*
Notice how the clueless denier has to run away from this:
"Knowing how these systems are changing and how they have changed
mrbawana2u
sucking dog cock and eating shit wrote:
> [who cares?]